I don't understand the point of this question. Perhaps God created it. Perhaps the room was always there. Does it make any difference?

The point is that there is no reason to say that God made the universe, as the universe could have made itself. On that note, there is also no reason to say that God is self-created, as the universe could also be self-created.

Originally Posted by erm

What is so hard to get?

If God exists:-

God is distinct from the Universe, therefore the Universe is not all encompassing, by definition.

If the 'Universe' = 'All things that exist' (not that that is its usual definition), then god is part of the Universe, by definition.

Claims that god is outside of existence are made by Atheists, not Theists..

Theists are the ones who maintain that god is all good and the universe inhabitants wicked. By doing this they insist that God is distinct from the universe.

If God is part of the universe, then his existence can be ascertained of by rational thought and science. There would be no further need for faith. This is not the argument that most theists play. They claim that God exists, yet we cannot make an argument in favor of His existence.

You are aware that every single thing in existence suffers from this same regress?

The causation chain either ends somewhere. A non-contingent being. Usually described as "self-created", or "eternal"/"atemporal". E.g. God, Energy etc.

Or, the causation chain is infinite. Essentially making the Universe itself the non-contingent being, since no individual being is treated as such.

A simple refutation:-

Numbers are infinite. They do not simultaneously contain all states. There are different states of infinity.

Originally Posted by erm

The level of infinity you refer to is a contradiction. As to contain all states, is to contain an individual state to contradict every other individual state. If it were to exist, it would be beyond the bounds of logic, as it would require states outside of logic.

There is no contradiction there. If a truly infinite entity existed, it would be the only entity that exists. The fact that we can talk about this meaningfully and justify the existence of an infinity proves that it is within and not outside of the bounds of logic. Anything that is 'beyond' the bounds of logic is unintelligible. The concept of a universe(everything that exists) containing only one entity is far from unintelligible. In fact, I do not even think it is possible for us to come up with an unintelligible notion (beyond logic) as we would be using logic to claim that it does exist.

"Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

Theists are the ones who maintain that god is all good and the universe inhabitants wicked. By doing this they insist that God is distinct from the universe.

I accept the base point here, that some theists argue that not all of creation is part god.

That simply does not refute an infinite, all good being's existence. It does, however, contradict the statement that everything is god, which some theists do hold.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

If God is part of the universe, then his existence can be ascertained of by rational thought and science. There would be no further need for faith. This is not the argument that most theists play. They claim that God exists, yet we cannot make an argument in favor of His existence.

Are you denying there are rational arguments for god's existence, or simply that they have any strength?

Most theists will claim that god's existence can be shown through rational thought or observation. Hence the large number of argument's that attempt to do this.

If you are denying that they have any strength, I can present to you what I think are the strongest arguments made in favour of god's existence. They demonstrate the rational element to "faith".

I do agree that a minority of Theists discard the rational element to God's existence.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

There is no contradiction there. If a truly infinite entity existed, it would be the only entity that exists. The fact that we can talk about this meaningfully and justify the existence of an infinity proves that it is within and not outside of the bounds of logic. Anything that is 'beyond' the bounds of logic is unintelligible. The concept of a universe(everything that exists) containing only one entity is far from unintelligible. In fact, I do not even think it is possible for us to come up with an unintelligible notion (beyond logic) as we would be using logic to claim that it does exist.

First of all, my point was that beyond logic is unintelligible. Hence how the OP's argument would be irrelevant.

If a truly infinite entity exists, it would be unintelligible, as it would be, at least partially, beyond logic. (the inevitable paradox arises from my uses of logic, but it only further proves the point) Simply because beyond logic would be part of the infinity.

However, an infinite entity need not be all states (truly infinite). If all numbers existed, they do not encompass all states, yet they are infinite (without limit). This is the typical Theist's view on omnipotence. That god cannot truly do "anything", he simply can do anything possible. It is also the typical Theist's view on god's infinite (all encompassing) nature.

Within that point lies a much stronger argument against that particular definition of God's existence. That logic is a more powerful force, as it provides limits to the infinity of god.

I don't understand the point of this question. Perhaps God created it. Perhaps the room was always there. Does it make any difference?

Indeed it does. My assertion, a rephrasing of Kant's formulation, is that our allegorical room was indeed "always there". This formulation is the only available solution to the problem of infinite regress. If God created the room as a space in which he adheres, i.e. as a thing separate from Himself, the problems we've been discussing arise.

You seem to have an unusual and multi-faceted definition of "infinite". Infinite describes something's quantity. It does not describe something's quality. Tell me does everything in this "infinite" universe of yours have to be matter and energy simultaneously in order for it to qualify for your definition of "infinite"?

I am using the term "infinite" to mean "not finite", a definition in which I have a good degree of confidence. As reality is infinite, it contains all states simultaneously. The notion that there was another state that it could become would indicate that there is a state which exists separate from it, thereby making it finite.

I began this thread because I believed I could provide a manner of approaching Kant's formulation that may be enlightening or at least of interest to some readers. If my presentation of this philosophical tenant has not made it more approachable for you I apologize. Perhaps in the future another, more readily-digestible manner of presentation of Kant's formulation will occur to me.

However, I would submit that, just as I did, you must be prepared to ask yourself in honesty if you have genuinely found the ration of Kant's formulation to be flawed, or if you're merely searching for grounds on which to dismiss it as the implications would not be congenial to your present beliefs.

Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

All the knowledge humans have discovered on earth is less than a drop of water to all the earth's ocean. What we know is very limited.

We physically must not exist. How? Supposing we remove every one of our senses. We can't see, hear, feel, taste or smell. What do we become? We become physically an object to someone else even if we are alive. Therefore someone or something is not there unless you sense him or it. So what would exist?
As far as I believe all humans and animals have souls. The difference between humans and animals though is that humans have will and animals don't. They have instinct to tell them what to do.
Moving towards the point is that our souls are what exist and our body is just it's container...

What is the source that makes us live? Why do our bodies work? Why does my heart beat? Because of oxygen? Why Oxygen? Why does the heart hold feelings? Why do people believe in God? because they are stupid? Why are they stupid? Why do other people not believe in God? Because science says so? Because the whole idea is unreal? Why is it unreal? Because they can't comprehend that their knowledge is almost nothing? Or because of the assumption that if they can't sense it it does not exist? How does the universe exists? Did it create itself? How did it create itself? The Big Bang theory? How did the process of the big bang come about?

If any are aware dimensions exist. Dimensions are many. As far as I know everyone lives within a different frequency but the same wavelength. Change them and we will see and experience things within the other frequencies and wavelengths we have adjusted to. What I believe is that we are all in the same wavelength yet a different frequency and that's why we sense all the same things. Change the wavelength and we will experience and see anything within that other wavelength. I believe this is how dimensions work.
I'm adding this to give some idea that everything we see is not everything in the universe. There is more..

I accept the base point here, that some theists argue that not all of creation is part god.

That simply does not refute an infinite, all good being's existence. It does, however, contradict the statement that everything is god, which some theists do hold..

If God is infinite, he has no limits. If he has no limits, than he is all things. If god is all, god is everything.

Most theists say that god is infinite (god is everything) and that god is all good. However, they say that people are evil. The implication of this is that god is not all because god is all good and some things are evil. Thus the theist incurs at least one of the two following contradictions.

1. God is all good.

and

2. God is not all good.

or

1. God is everything.

and

2. God is not everything.

Originally Posted by erm

Are you denying there are rational arguments for god's existence, or simply that they have any strength? ..

The latter. I claim that those arguments are implausible.

Originally Posted by erm

If you are denying that they have any strength, I can present to you what I think are the strongest arguments made in favour of god's existence. They demonstrate the rational element to "faith"...

I am interested in hearing about it.

Originally Posted by erm

If a truly infinite entity exists, it would be unintelligible, as it would be, at least partially, beyond logic."...

If a truly infinite entity existed one of the two things must follow.

(1) Either we would perceive the world as one entity and that we are not distinct from that entity.

(2) We would perceive the world as having multiple entities and because of this our perceptions would not reveal the true nature of the ultimate reality.

If an infinite entity exists (suppose it is God), it must be the case that there is a fundamental separation between the world as it is and the world as we experience it. Because we perceive the world as having multiple attributes, it must be the case that what we see is an illusion. Because the human mind is structured in such a way that it is impossible for us to see the world as a single attribute, the infinite must be permanently inaccessible to us.

Conclusion: If there is an infinite God, we can know nothing about Him, not even that He exists.

Originally Posted by erm

(the inevitable paradox arises from my uses of logic, but it only further proves the point) Simply because beyond logic would be part of the infinity.."...

Logic is a collection of principles of reasoning. Reasoning is used to describe entities that can be observed by us. The infinite is not one of such entities. Whatever cannot be be observed either by the senses or the intellect is unintelligible. Hence, what is beyond logic is unintelligible. Because the infinite is beyond logic, it is unintelligible.

Originally Posted by erm

(However, an infinite entity need not be all states (truly infinite)..."...

It must be all 'states' because the entity in question by definition has no limits. If it is not all things, then its territory is limited and therefore it is not infinite.

Originally Posted by erm

(If all numbers existed, they do not encompass all states, yet they are infinite (without limit).)..."...

In the strictest sense the set of natural numbers is not infinite. It is infinite in only one regard, or numerical ascend. Hence, when we say that God is infinite and that a set of natural numbers is infinite, we mean different things by the word infinite.

Originally Posted by erm

(This is the typical Theist's view on omnipotence. That god cannot truly do "anything", he simply can do anything possible.).)..."...

Can God tell a joke that is so funny that he cannot stop himself from laughing?

Originally Posted by erm

(It is also the typical Theist's view on god's infinite (all encompassing) nature..).)..."...

I do not understand how this conclusion follows from what you have discussed earlier in this post.

Originally Posted by erm

(Within that point lies a much stronger argument against that particular definition of God's existence. That logic is a more powerful force, as it provides limits to the infinity of god.

There must be one particular definition for the existence of God with regard to each discussion. If the definition has changed, so has the subject of discussion changed. The case is such with regard to all definitions, as soon as the definition of the subject-matter changes, so does the course of the entire discussion.

Consider the following example. Suppose we are talking about the nature of an 'ass'. If we mean that it is a donkey, or an animal that is frequently found on a farm, our discussion will be about farms and farm animals. Suddenly, if we change the definition to a person who is rude and inconsiderate, we will begin talking about etiquette and human nature.

"Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

It doesn't i think its like a puzzle that is missing way too many pieces. All people can do is not assume about anything that is uncertain until the answer is discovered by exploration into the unknown.

We-are-already-in-the-"unknown"...

... They say that knowledge is free, and to truly acquire wisdom always comes with a price... Well then,... That will be $10, please!

You insult me for no good reason. Also, by not showing me the logic behind your argument, you destablize your position. Therefore, until you can come up with solid logic to the contrary, I have to declare your argument less than logical--an argument based on faith. Either put up your sword and fight, or go post in the Graveyard.

That's where our paths diverge. You see the OP's argument as logical. However, if you follow the collective teachings and texts that Christians claim to base their profile of God on, you'd understand that their God has always been, with no start, and no end. Therefore...according to the Bible, the supposed authority on the Christian God...there is no issue with existence as He is existence, and he has always been, just as I argued previously.

And the evidence for this is...where? Because you have a book that says so?

Originally Posted by Fuzzcrossed

Do I have proof this is true? No. Do you have proof that an infinite God doesn't exist? No. Therefore, you must either conceed that your argument is based on faith...or you must prove me wrong with facts.

Nope, this is the most common fallacy in literal interpretation of religion.

The problem isn't that you're factually wrong; it's that you're not even approaching the question in terms that will allow you consider it meaningfully.

The argument that "well we can't be 100% certain either way, so I guess it's 50/50" doesn't hold up because it attempts to answer an inherently unanswerable question with absolute certainty.

In real life, we virtually never have absolute certainty, so we're forced to use intuition to consider things in terms of incomplete information. Frankly, the need to have a 100% definite certain answer on this question is the very thing that leads you to a poorly formulated position.

You can't prove 100% that Russell's Teapot isn't actually there, but this is why we use intuition in science--we use the information available to make a guess as to what is most probably true, but we never really know for certain.

Lacking 100% certainty is not sufficient reason to believe in arbitrary absurdities. When you make a supernatural claim, the burden of proof is on YOU, not on people who don't believe you!

In the real world we consider problems such as "Does God exist as a conscious and self-aware entity with a moral agenda?" in terms of probability clouds, not definite yes-or-no binary propositions.

So the answer to that question is neither "Yes" nor "No", but rather: "[Given the available evidence and the fact that our information is not and will never be complete], probably not."

Get back to me when you've read up on Russell's Teapot. When you can explain why your conscious entity God with a moral agenda who's judging us for the afterlife is a more credible proposition than the Teapot, we'll talk.

Originally Posted by Fuzzcrossed

Demonstrate to the NF how the hell any of what he said was based on logic? Isn't logic based in reality? How can you prove to me what Mycroft said was real? Just the same as I can't prove the Christian God to you.

This is more rehasing of the "WELL WE DON'T KNOW FOR 100% SURE SO I GUESS IT'S OKAY TO BELIEVE IN ARBITRARY MADE UP NONSENSE" argument, which utterly fails for the reasons listed above.

I'm not so sure you're "my size" after all.

Originally Posted by Fuzzcrossed

Those Christians who bother to think see this as much a viable path as yours. Unfortunately, logicians on both sides can become rather stubborn in their reasoning after they've accepted something as an absolute truth. Pretty soon you start looking for things to justify your position on both sides and neither of you has a shred of real evidence.

lol, no, Christians who bother to think are intelligent enough to recognize that God can't be considered in absolute binary terms. Christians who bother to think recognize that the literal existence/non-existence of God is irrelevant and that the Bible's only real purpose is to provide guidance for how to live more a happier and more productive life.

Christians who bother to think recognize, also, that it's highly improbable that God actually exists in literal form--they've just moved beyond the childish need for supernatural validation and recognized the value in Christ's words purely for its own sake (not because they think they'll be rewarded for it later.)

Christians who bother to think don't rely on the flimsy "less than 100% certainty = absolutely 50/50!" nonsense that you seem to think somehow justifies arbitrary belief in anything, no matter how ridiculous.

It's not 100% certain that I won't be attacked by a dragon when I leave my house today, but that doesn't make the probability of dragons existing 50/50. It's still ~99.9999999999% likely that dragons don't exist based on the mountains of scientific evidence we have against the existence of dragons, so if you want to run around claiming that dragons exist, the burden of proof is on you and you're not going to be taken seriously just because nobody has 100% empirical evidence to definitively show that they don't.

Facts don't really come into play when discussing religion and philosophy; only inductive reasoning is used.

I don't say, "WELL WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF DRAGONS REALLY EXIST, SO I'LL JUST STAY IN MY HOUSE FOREVER INCASE THEY DO--AFTER ALL, WOULDN'T WANT TO GET EATEN BY A DRAGON!"

I hope you see why that's so silly, and why it also applies to fundamentalist interpretation of religion equally well.

Originally Posted by Fuzzcrossed

Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia OH LOOK! WIKIPEDIA HAS AN ARTICLE!!! That means, if you are able to reference it, that there's obviously enough consensus to have a Faith (and hey, look, I even included a LINK for you). There are varying views everywhere, but to be Christians, you have to follow Christ, and believe in his mission, his miracles, and his claim to divinity, no matter what you decide to call yourself! Obviously, there's enough to go on to have a philosophical, non-logical argument about faith on both sides.

I've studied Christianity in depth, thanks. The fact that your position is easily destroyed via something as simple and common as Russell's Teapot indicates to me that I probably know a lot more about the background of your faith than you do.

I know it's important to your value system to consider your position "equally credible", to try and muddy the waters by equating religion with science, but the fact is it's not. There are definitely intelligent and reasonable Christians out there who have a deep and expansive understanding of the concepts involved in the faith, but none of them rely upon the "YOU DON'T HAVE 100% EVIDENCE AGAINST IT SO I'M GOING TO ASSUME IT'S TRUE HEHEHEHE" defense.

In fact, such people aren't even preoccupied with proving God's existence because they know it's a waste of time--again, God isn't really the point, only the effect that behaving as if he exists will have on one's real life (I'll offer Peguy as a case in point...there's an example of a smart Christian who isn't even bothering with this argument because he knows that the only real reason to have faith is for the positive effects it can have on your external life and the goals you complete..."proving" or "disproving" it is entirely beside the point.)

When you grow out of the need for a 100% certain answer on this topic, you'll start to appreciate the real value in Christianity...which is primarily philosophical, not dogmatic or supernatural.

If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

(I'll offer Peguy as a case in point...there's an example of a smart Christian who isn't even bothering with this argument because he knows that the only real reason to have faith is for the positive effects it can have on your external life and the goals you complete..."proving" or "disproving" it is entirely beside the point.)

I do make a distinction between the Religious life and the Ethical life. There are many who wish to reduce Christianity to mere ethics, I'm not one of them.

I'm not bothering with this discussion because it's following the same formula other discussions about religion here follow - and my participation seems to only complicate and disrupt the normal flow of normal discourse on such matters. Rather than do that, I'll just let you people carry on.

the real value in Christianity...which is primarily philosophical, not dogmatic or supernatural.